participate at Atheist Forums

[munster]

Godslanguage wrote

Your not answering the question. It doesn't matter what religion you grow up with, its a matter of whether your given a choice at some point along the way to decide for yourself. Going to church is one thing, but not knowing why is another. Frequently we have many "religious" people who don't know what they believe in, nor do they care, these people attend church for the main purpose of tradition rendering them questionable as to their actual religious beliefs are. Questioning my faith is a part of the process and I have questioned it up to a point that renders atheism incompatible with the results thus far given that I have at one extended period of time (many years) would classify myself an atheist or at least a strong agnostic.

I have answered it, it does matter what religion you grow up with, ask yourself why didn't Gman becoe a Muslim BECAUSE HIS PARENTS WERE CHRISTIAN. Of course he had a choice but don't you think he was influenced just a tad by his upbringing, that is my point, ........sheesh.

Actually, if I were to say it more eloquently in personal context, Atheism is a function of arrogance and a hate for God.

a hate for God is actuall an 'antithesit', and if you believe atheism is arrogance fine, but christianity is well up there too, my good man.

[munster]

I give up on the first argument, I'm no longer going to repeat myself

You have indeed been repeating yourself but repeating something doesn't make it anymore true.

What? that the only person out of your house to have a religion just happens to have his parents former religion? It think it does...

[Gman]

Ah yes we're going down this route 'show me the evidence', I suggest you read 'The Selfish Gene' or/and 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins, for a comprehensive view of evolution, and please don't be childish by replying 'you have no evidence of evolution', as I said its all around us, and probably happening in front of our eyes.

Ok, then I'll say it again... There is no proof of Darwinian evolution.. About Richard Dawkins... In a recent interview in the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein asked Dawkins, how life got started. Richard calmly replied, "No one really knows how life got started."

There are no proven tests for it...

So you see, even Dawkins stands against you.. He can't even fully admit that there isn't a god in his book "the god delusion."

Now can you show me evidence of 'The Garden of Eden' or if you want you can like I did and point me to a tried and tested scientific method like Dawkins has done, I'm sure there is one out there for Adam and Eve that has near indisputable scientific research behind it.

So you are trying to draw me into a debate about the falsehood of the Bible. I see, you know you can't answer my questions, so now you attack the Bible. That is all you have... We are all living proof that Adam and Eve existed.. Let's start this debate, where is your proof that man developed by chance? Where is your proof that the Garden didn't exist?

[godslanguage]

a hate for God is actuall an 'antithesit', and if you believe atheism is arrogance fine, but christianity is well up there too, my good man.

I did not say a hate for God or arrogance, I said a hate for God and arrogance (as in coupled with), that is a big difference, my good man.

[munster]

@Gman

I know Dawkins said that, and I have also said that on this thread, that I also don't know how life began, but I don't out it down to God.

So you see, even Dawkins stands against you.. He can't even fully admit that there isn't a god in his book "the god delusion."

This is really clutching at straws stuff Gman, but if you paid attention to my conversation with cslewislover on this thread you will have seen me say that you can never claim 100% (genuinely no pun intended with the use of percentages) of the existence of something. I can't claim absolute that there is no benevolent god, and a person cannot be 100% certain that there is a god either, if anyone claims differnt they must have serious issues as this is a very unhealthy way to be. So you will see that me and Dicky don't really stand against each other.

So you are trying to draw me into a debate about the falsehood of the Bible. I see, you know you can't answer my questions, so now you attack the Bible. That is all you have... We are all living proof that Adam and Eve existed.. Let's start this debate, where is your proof that man developed by chance? Where is your proof that the Garden didn't exist?

That is another handy way out of anargument 'That is all you have (attaking the Bible)',
Please define chance as regards man evolving (and I think you will find your answers the books I mentioned to you.)
I was the one that asked you where is the proof for it and you come back and ask me where is the proof against! very childish

So as I stated previously, I supplied you with Works that are sound scientific tried and tested arguments, where is yours for the garden of Eden assuming that it existed at one stage or another.

[munster]

a hate for God is actuall an 'antithesit', and if you believe atheism is arrogance fine, but christianity is well up there too, my good man.

I did not say a hate for God or arrogance, I said a hate for God and arrogance (as in coupled with), that is a big difference, my good man.

Well in my opinion its not, because if you hate god coupled or not that is being an antitheist, but then again thats just me,

[Gman]

I'm wasting too much time on you...

This is really clutching at straws stuff Gman, but if you paid attention to my conversation with cslewislover on this thread you will have seen me say that you can never claim 100% (genuinely no pun intended with the use of percentages) of the existence of something. I can't claim absolute that there is no benevolent god, and a person cannot be 100% certain that there is a god either, if anyone claims differnt they must have serious issues as this is a very unhealthy way to be. So you will see that me and Dicky don't really stand against each other.

Oh, I see... So now you are backing down on your atheistic beliefs.. How come? Of course many secularists don't debunk religion or deny it a false directly. So what do they do? They simply assign it to the value realm which takes it out of the realm of true and false altogether. Of course secularists say they respect our religion, and at the same time they deny it has any relevance to the public realm.

In the words of Phillip Johnson, “It allows the metaphysical naturalists to mollify the potentially troublesome religious people by assuring them that science does not rule out “religious belief” (so long as it does not pretend to be knowledge).

But that is your problem... Why? Because your beliefs are religious too.. You have to except it on faith. You simply cannot prove your Darwinistic views one way or another..

That is another handy way out of anargument 'That is all you have (attaking the Bible)',
Please define chance as regards man evolving (and I think you will find your answers the books I mentioned to you.)

Chance? That is all you have if you take God out of the equation.. Blind chance.

I was the one that asked you where is the proof for it and you come back and ask me where is the proof against! very childish

Very funny.. I already showed you the proof. The proof is that you have no proof that life developed by random chance..

So as I stated previously, I supplied you with Works that are sound scientific tried and tested arguments, where is yours for the garden of Eden assuming that it existed at one stage or another.

You certainly did NOT supply me with any proof for Darwinian evolution. So I'm asking you again. Where is your proof? Hit me with your best shot.. Fire away...

[munster]

@Gman

I'm wasting too much time on you...

Ditto

Oh, I see... So now you are backing down on your atheistic beliefs..

More childishness I never said I was backing down, or gave no evidence of it, if you bothered to look up what I said to CSlewislover, you'd understand what I was on about and how it is also how Dawkins feels. It's there in black and white if you want to go back and look at it.

Because your beliefs are religious too..

I've gone over this there not religious, you are a very hard man to get through to

Chance? That is all you have if you take God out of the equation.. Blind chance.

Take god out of the equation and you have science which is the system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method by research, i.e. being reasonable, try it sometime

Very funny.. I already showed you the proof.

You showed me zero proof based on scientific research

You certainly did NOT supply me with any proof for Darwinian evolution. So I'm asking you again. Where is your proof? Hit me with your best shot.. Fire away...

As I said I couldn't, unless we got a time machine and pointed out the continuing processes of evolution for the past few million years, all the scientific evidence points to Evolution, which the Richard Dawkins books I mentioned to you, would help you understand.

But I'm sure you have scientific evidence of the Garden of Eden or are you going to continuously dodge this question, and make me repeat myself.

Hit me with your best shot.. Fire away..

[Gman]

More childishness I never said I was backing down, or gave no evidence of it, if you bothered to look up what I said to CSlewislover, you'd understand what I was on about and how it is also how Dawkins feels. It's there in black and white if you want to go back and look at it.

Calling me a child won't get you anywhere... You have to man-up to your beliefs and show me your evidence.. If not then perhaps you have the childish beliefs.

I've gone over this there not religious, you are a very hard man to get through to

It's religion with a capitol R.

According Dr. Michael Ruse, perhaps the most eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has even admitted the following:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

'… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Take god out of the equation and you have science which is the system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method by research, i.e. being reasonable, try it sometime

Yes and it's amazing how that evidence has stacked up against Darwinism. A pitty.

As I said I couldn't, unless we got a time machine and pointed out the continuing processes of evolution for the past few million years, all the scientific evidence points to Evolution, which the Richard Dawkins books I mentioned to you, would help you understand.

Yes a time machine... More science fiction. Warp speed scotty.... A stage show with popcorn and ice cream included.

But I'm sure you have scientific evidence of the Garden of Eden or are you going to continuously dodge this question, and make me repeat myself.

Hit me with your best shot.. Fire away..

Fire away I will.....

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting"



Sorry champ, but this discussion is going nowhere..

[jlay]

Science does NOT defend an eternal unmade universe, have you heard of the Big Bang Theory? and Once again who created the creator, science would also go against saying that something has always been there.

Actually science does.

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Th ... iverse.htm

It is a theory, as is big bang. They are two conflicting theories, but they are both theories nontheless.

You asked how do I know God is eternal? A fair question. I assure you I can't prove God is uncreated. But I can demonstrate that the bible claims God is both eternal and uncreated, and that these claims were recorded thousands of years before these scientific questions would arise.

Also, I never said that the historical accuracy of the bible proves the miracles. It simply gives us a measuring stick on whether or not to further investigate the claims of the bible. If the bible fails in those stages, then we need not explore any further.

You see, you are trying to deny the miracles by these methods. You say, well the bible was written 50 years after Christ. You are attempting to undermine the bible by casting doubt on its historicity. even though the bible has shown to measure off the charts under the historical microscope. But when someone says, the bible has proven itself historically, you simply move the goal post. But it claims miracles? Yes. So, don't try to undermine the miracles of the bible claiming historicity, while in the same breath condemning those who defend it through actual proven historical facts.

I do hope you will take a fresh look into these issues. I suspect you are not, because up until this point all you have done is regurgitate arguments that have been asked and answered thousands of times over. This is a very common debate. Who created God? answer. Why didn't God appear in China? answer. Why does God allow suffering? answer. back to old objection, answer, new objection, etc., etc. You don't demonstrate yourself to be a free thinker, but one who is vehemently opposed to the Christian faith. How many muslim apologetic sites have you visited?

What you will find, if you are willing to take a fresh look, is that there are some folks here who have incredible answers to the sincere questions. But you are going to be met with resistance if you continue on this same track. This aint our first rodeo.

BTW, saying there are books with proof of evolution is not proof of evolution. If darwinian evolution is provable then please state the single best case for it. To site The Blind Watchmaker as proof of evolution doesn't put you on the ground of a sincere information seeker. It puts you on the ground of an antagonist. The book is not written from the perspective of objective science, but with an anti-theist agenda. Dawkins is not interested in proving evolution but in disproving the existence of God.

Interesting that science is now trying to introduce the "supernatural" into the big bang. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093222.htm
Now see, and anti-theist will read this without the least bit of skepticism. It requires the supernatural. Nothing gives birth to everything. Yet, introduce the idea of a creator, and their hair stands on end.

[Truthhurts]

Well this debate seems to have stagnated, hardly surprising really.
to be honest i think that it simply comes down to how you look at the world.
For those...blessed (pardon the pun) with a more rational outlook on life, such as munster, the idea of the god of the bible creating the universe is totally nonsense. as he alluded to who created the creater and all that.
if there was a god that created the universe...a prime mover if you will then he would have to be something even greater than the univers itself...no argument from the christians on that point i would suggest..... however to say that he is before time and thus outside the universe is a total cop out, not rational and will never be accepted by any person who truly thinks rationally. Science works, and even though it cant tell you what created the universe it has an idea up until a few miliseconds after the big bang what happend. Also science cant tell you exactly how life got started but again it can tell you exactly what happened after.
science works, when you turn on your computer today, when you look at your phone, when you see through a telescope into the darkest recesses of space, when you take a tablet if your not feeling good in fact practically every facet of our modern lives is governed by science or rather the advances of science.
science has taken the human species out of the depths of prehistory to where we stand today.
science as knowelege is the greatest gift we have given ourselves...and it was won the hard way through experiment and thought and re-experiment untill we now know how things work.
when you say evolution is non-provable your are ignoring the hard won facts that people have won for humanity...
there is no problem with evolution in the scientific comunity the only thing we argue about now are the fine details...the evidence is there for all to see in genetics, biology, anthroplogy, archaeology in fact the evidence is so widespread in so many facets of science that for the scientific community there is no question of it...evolution is a fact.
when some one says some thing like blind chance they betray not only the facts hard one for humanity but their own ignorance of said facts. There is no blind chance in evolution and anyone who says there is has no idea of what evoultion says happened. as munster said read the blind watchmaker or youtube climbing mount improbable. read any evolution book for that matter...not than anyone here will!!
evidence for evoultion is in the fossils....how about the evolution of bacteria in the lab over time, germ theory or how about the bloody obvious fact that we look almost EXACTLY the same as monkeys and share 99% of their DNA.
i know it doesnt really matter what i say i defense of evolution some will never get it. they will say stupid things like how come there are still apes if we evolved from them? or things like that which again show nothing but ignorance of what evolution says.
no body disputes the theory of gravity....(intelligent falling anyone) or the theory of the atom or pretty much anything else in science.
It seems that evolution alone is a lightening rod for the faithful, why....because it gives us an idea of our beginings as a species which cannot be ignored by the faithful because it directly disputes the bible.
think on this....at the best estimate the universe is 13.4 billion years old, the earth a mere 4 billion.
life has existed on this planet in some form or another for 3 billion years.....our earth floats in a vacum where the temperature is practically absoulte zero amongst billions and billions (alot- you get the idea) of suns and planets and you think that a personal god created all that just for you.....we are an insignificant species....
i like this god made us in his image bit too....then why are we not invisible!!
.....no we are not the centre of anyones creation that should be obvious to every one here!!
so i ask one question. prove to me god exists??

[Byblos]

..we are an insignificant species....
i like this god made us in his image bit too....then why are we not invisible!!

I agree with you. You are both insignificant as well as invisible. Watch how I can make you disappear.

[jlay]

looks like the ardent atheists have gotten together, and planned a sneak attack.

science works, when you turn on your computer today, when you look at your phone, when you see through a telescope into the darkest recesses of space, when you take a tablet if your not feeling good in fact practically every facet of our modern lives is governed by science or rather the advances of science.
science has taken the human species out of the depths of prehistory to where we stand today.

You gotta love it. You can email and take an aspirin and feel better, so darwinism is true. You really have to laugh at this kind of thinking. Talk about riding on the coat tails.

look almost EXACTLY the same as monkeys and share 99% of their DNA.

We share 50% of our DNA with bananas and fruit flies. Yippee. Maybe you look exactly like a monkey, but please don't speak for the rest of us.

prove to me god exists??

Mods, I'd keep a close eye on this thread, and clean up any junk with haste.

[cslewislover]

@ Byblos. Lol. I was just going to say, which I guess I'm still going to say, that his rationality bits were so silly. So all the scientists, doctors, researchers, etc., that believe in God are all irrational? I wonder what his definition of rational is. Maybe they're simply less smug.

@ jlay. Well, munster was pretty respectful for a while. I'm not sure if he's still around or not, I'd have to check.

[Byblos]

Mods, I'd keep a close eye on this thread, and clean up any junk with haste.

Haha! beat you to it, the ax has fallen (I guess the truth did hurt).